Take cities or not?

[fibiger15]

When playing as the Axis.
Your nearly in winter´41.
You should start digging in.
So my question is.Is it worthwhile to take a city ( In my case Kursk/Karkov/Orel), when there is no major gain
in manpower loss to the russians(good encirclement).
And you know you maybe only able to hold the city a few weeks before the russian buldozer called winter offensive drives you out.
I mean is there a upside to captuering without being to hold it.For example the damage the city takes(depots,rail,factories) when being captured.
Hope this question makes sense.

[carlkay58]

This is one of those "who knows?" questions. On the one hand if you take it you do damage to the facilities and (probably most important) the manpower center so the Soviets will not get as much manpower from it as they would if you did not take it. On the other hand you will probably end up losing some VPs because of it all. If it is one of the major Soviet manpower centers, I would say take it and you would be ahead but the answer really is 'who knows?'

[AlbertN]

There should not even be this question in the game.
If the Germans can grab Orel in '41 they should. No matter if they are to lose it or not.

The change I suggested is pretty simple - VP Bonuses for On Map Objectives are awarded only to the side with the initiative.

To answer the question - VPs are anyhow a final meter of judgement. Manpower provided by the City is something perpetual.
Take the City.

[hei1]

Beside VP calculations (and grabbing MP, railyards, etc): if you want to defend somewhere in winter, cities are a good location in my opinion. They help building fortifications and offer a warm home for the Pz on blizzard (I hope this is still true in wite2?)